Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77DC6632D36 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 12:39:05 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 38519-04 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 16:38:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sargon.lncsa.com (mail.lncsa.com [213.215.28.11]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A54A9632D02 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 12:38:54 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sargon.lncsa.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94E74301E6D3 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 17:38:53 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at lncsa.com Received: from sargon.lncsa.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sargon.lncsa.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bO9gzhc60sXD for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 17:38:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from zenon.apartia.fr (zenon.apartia.fr [10.0.3.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "zenon.apartia.fr", Issuer "ca.apartia.fr" (verified OK)) by sargon.lncsa.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73992300E35F for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 17:38:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from galba.apartia.fr (galba.apartia.fr [10.0.3.119]) by zenon.apartia.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D29858AE8F6F for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 17:38:53 +0100 (CET) Received: by galba.apartia.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F2A981D42C; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 17:38:52 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 17:38:52 +0100 From: Louis-David Mitterrand To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: check constraint on multiple tables? Message-ID: <20100303163852.GA24445@apartia.fr> Mail-Followup-To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org References: <20100303150227.GA18661@apartia.fr> <396486431003030714s48b239e2ub8b58a49b9aa29e4@mail.gmail.com> <20100303151900.GA19735@apartia.fr> <396486431003030729x17f921bcr7ff439113a5644ab@mail.gmail.com> <20100303153831.GA20503@apartia.fr> <7B7DB40901C947B688FD3BAC874E762F@marktestcr.marktest.pt> <20100303161759.GB22889@apartia.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.89 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=AWL=-0.891, BAYES_50=0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201003/25 X-Sequence-Number: 33732 On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 10:29:44AM -0600, Little, Douglas wrote: > Louis, > Interesting discussion. Always fun to think about real world stuff. Indeed. > We have a similar problem for comparing hotel rooms. > So the issue is that you aren't originating the data, just classifying it. > I'd move toward a scheme where you reclassify the line marketing speak > to common lay terms. You're trying to help consumers compare. > Exactly what the marketers don't want them to do. I'm leaning towards exactly that: letting the data settle, spot overlap and general trends, reclassify. > After all a silk purse is just a sow's ear without marketing. > :) True but cruise customers buy into that marketing and insist on those slight distinctions between almost identical cabins. It's all a question of status and it's what cruise lines sell. Thanks,